Why doesn’t it sound like your style? That’s what I’m asking. What kind of wine does this sound like? I figure there should be enough info here for someone more informed than me to deduce the style of wine that’s going to be in the bottle before I buy it.
If dosage is normally measured in grams of sugar, I think the dosage here is actually 6.8 grams. They used 10ml of a 68% simple syrup made with the wine.
it’s like asking if someone would like this song:
key: G major
length: 3 minutes 18 seconds.
tempo: 88 bpm
band: two guitars, 1 bass, drums, and sitar
All I’m asking is: Is that high dosage? Is that low or high acid? Is that low or high pH?
2017 Navarro Brut. What do I win (hopefully not a bottle of that!)?
this is “winning” the way paying the most for an auction lot is “winning”
that’s enough wine internet for me today
Posted from CellarTracker
Edit: should have given it more time to breathe.x with air the weirdness dies down and the ripe Pinot-ness pushes through hard. Still not 100% for me, but can see how others would enjoy it
My sixth bottle of the 2015, I really enjoy this vintage of Efflorescence.
Posted from CellarTracker
Andrew, I’m hoping someone can help me better understand how the dosage measurements work. My understanding is rocky.
I thought dosage was expressed as a ratio, which in your example would be almost 7g/l.
I thought this meant that enough syrup was added to bring the bottle up to 7 grams sugar per liter. A 750ml bottle would then have 5.25 grams of sugar (7 x .75) in it. Any additional wine necessary to top off the fill line would be added afterward. The actual g/l measurement could vary slightly as a result.
This is a relatively new thought. Originally, and for a long time, I thought the g/l measurement was for the wine that topped up the bottle, and the actual sugar content could vary slightly depending upon how much was needed to fill the bottle.
Both scenarios provide for a slim difference, which I interpreted as bottle variation.
In your calculations, adding 10ml dosage works out to match the titratable acidity, which seems like an odd coincidence. As a rule, I generally don’t accept innocent coincidences.
Can someone help me understand, or perhaps point in the proper direction?
I think this is quite confusing and untransparent,
After the degorgement the liqueur de tirage is added, usually 1cl /10 mil for brut, but this does not tell us how much sugar is actually in the liqueur de tirage.
I think the relationship of the titrable acidity has nothing to with the dosage, rather the relationship of the ph to the titrable acidity give us an indication of how fresh the champagne is. The higher the ph, the less freshness regardless of the acidity. This is becoming the key element in these warm vintages, getting this ratio correct.
If this is a champagne, the most important thing would be to know who the producer is. Also if this is a Brut Champagne, because for me the 10 ml is meaningless without a ratio of sugar/litre.
Other factors, if this is a champagne, where are grapes coming from, north/south, because just to write Pinot Noir and Chardonnay in the context of champagne is meaningless.
Also what plays a big role is the first pressing or the taille (the second pressing). If it is the second pressing to adjust for the lack of quality, one has to put up the dosage.
I don’t know how to interpret titratable acidity, but I’ll take a shot for the rest. If the dosage stat is actually 10g/l then this is on the slightly richer side of brut, but 10ml doesn’t really tell me anything. At a PH of 3.1 its carrying fair but not really bracing acidity. I’ve had a number of champagnes in the 2.95-3.05 range, which is very cutting. Many bigger house bruts range between 3.1-3.2. So tough to even make a call on whether this is warm vintage, normal year, NV blend. The pinot to chard blend is not unusual. It’s fairly similar to Dom Perignon.
And it tells me (it might tell others who are less ignorant a good bit more) very little about whether it was vinified in steel, oak, malo, time on lees, etc., which all will materially affect the actual flavor profile the wine is going to show off.
So I would say, too hard to tell. Need more information. The only thing you can probably make a call on is that with the dosage, the perceived acidity will not be super high, and the wine will have some richness to it.
Don, Thanks for responding. From your previous posts in the other thread, I am pretty sure you can answer my question, which is different from Andrew’s, if I can ask it clearly:
When a dosage measurement is provided, it refers to the amount of sugar in the bottle, right? 7g/l means the wine in the bottle has 5.25 grams of sugar in a 750ml bottle.
Or does it mean the amount of sugar that was in the liqueur de tirage? The actual amount of sugar in the bottle unknown; the liqueur was 7g/l?
When a dosage measurement is provided, it refers to the amount of sugar in the bottle, right? 7g/l means the wine in the bottle has 5.25 grams of sugar in a 750ml bottle.
This is correct.
The Champagne region is similiar to Jura or the Alsace, numerous wineries that nobody has heard of selling directly. Champagnes for under 20 € that are more preferable to drinking a wine for under 20€. Serge Pierlot was quite a discovery for us, the 2008 is sold out so I can write freely about it.
The winery is run by a woman, who inherited plots in Ambonnay and Avize, a killer combination .The grapes are pressed at the cooperative and she does the elevage and bottling. The basic champagne aromatically has everything one expects of Ambonnay, just a light wieght rather than a heavy wieght, yet a champagne most mortals can afford to drink on a regular basis.
The producer told us she had some 2008s, naturally we were all ears and said we would take everything she offered us. The 2008 is a beautiful champagne, not a bruiser rather elegant with the aromatics one expects of Ambonnay, the extra brut helps accentuates this and gives the champagne a lot of tension and the finish is quite spectacular. The producer is friends with Egly, Marguet, Rodez etc, but she comes across as a bit like Ledru, normal and does not care for the limelight. I think she makes foremostly champagnes she likes drinking herself rather than what producers believe testers want to taste.
No cowbell tells us all we need to know.
Extracted from a thread just posted re 8 wines tasted blind:
2012 TAITTINGER COMTES de CHAMPAGNE BLANC de BLANC- I avoided noticing the potentially telltale bottle shape and kept this as objective as possible since I did not bring bubbly; whatever it was, it was fabulous and I started to go through the process of elimination to determine what it was; it was super rich and full bodied with a major hit of lemon zest and therefore so mindful of either a 2008 Cristal or Comtes or possibly a Dom Perignon; the more I tasted it over the entire course of the evening, the more I loved it; it had a nice spicy accent and a creamy, dreamy mouthfeel and bright acidity; I landed on Comtes, but I’d never had the 2012, but have had many 2008 {and other vintages}; this is a must have champagne for me and I’m grateful for the blind exposure that confirmed getting it.
2002 POL ROGER EXTRA CUVEE de RESERVE BLANC de BLANC- this had a yellow gold color suggesting some maturity; the nose however did not as it gave nice fresh red cherry/ berry and citrus notes that were also found on the palate along with honey and ginger accents; it had elegance and yet some depth and weight and also had a creamy, feel good texture; while trying to identify it, I’m vacillating between younger or older and the color was strongly suggesting older, but the elegance said otherwise; one correctly called it 2002 and I just could not get there; once revealed, I realized I’d had a few other bottles from the same one who brought it in the last few years and they were much more advanced and easier to call, vintage wise at least.
Cheers,
Blake
A powerful champagne where the Meunier dominates at the beginning, with time acidity and salinity develop. At the moment this champagne is about potential, I look forward to tasting in two or three years.
Hey Don or Donald, Wine searcher shows no bottles available in the US, if it had been imported what do you think the shelf price here would have been?
Donald, Rion has just really started to up the quality. Not many sources at the moemnt big in Denmark.
The Originel costs in France about 30 €. The Reserve which is quite a step up and costs in France around about 35 €. I don’t know how this would work out price wise in the US. He has two lines of champagnes, the Reserve and the Originel which are more traditional/inox and the Crus which are barrique at around about 45 - 50 €.
If a champagne producer makes it on to Caves du Forum selection, one usualknows they are good.
half bottle of krug 170 at marta in nyc last night because it was $100 and i was curious. solid showing with a bit of air. certainly had the classic krug profile on the nose, but 100% confirms my bias that this format - at least for this wine - is clipped and just not ideal. so much so, that i’m shocked they still bottle it.
I agree, never liked halves of Krug.
